Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:55 PM

IDE every day of the week. I used to use just a simple note-pad style text editor, but using an IDE with features like: syntax highlighting, brace highlighting, auto complete, documentation, etc.... has saved sooo much time and effort on my part.

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Sorry, but why would you consider using a "notepad"-like program over an IDE? As Duckington said, an IDE has numerous features, while the former is just a word-processing program.

Just curious, I'm not bashing text-editors

I have no idea why anyone would use anything like notepad, but a proper editor is the right tool for editing. Why you'd want a dedicated (and substandard) editor for writing code is beyond me, even if it has some added features that duplicate the ones that are already available from your command line. (ie, build tools, repository access, etc)

To me, using an IDE indicates that either you don't know how to use your OS or that your OS doesn't work right. In the latter case, I suppose an IDE is the second-best choice, and presumably you're only using a broken OS because the first-best choice isn't available to you for some reason. In the former case, I recommend this book (available as a free download) as a starting point.

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Sorry, but why would you consider using a "notepad"-like program over an IDE? As Duckington said, an IDE has numerous features, while the former is just a word-processing program.

Just curious, I'm not bashing text-editors

I have no idea why anyone would use anything like notepad, but a proper editor is the right tool for editing. Why you'd want a dedicated (and substandard) editor for writing code is beyond me, even if it has some added features that duplicate the ones that are already available from your command line. (ie, build tools, repository access, etc)

To me, using an IDE indicates that either you don't know how to use your OS or that your OS doesn't work right. In the latter case, I suppose an IDE is the second-best choice, and presumably you're only using a broken OS because the first-best choice isn't available to you for some reason. In the former case, I recommend this book (available as a free download) as a starting point.

Well you're obviously far too pro for the rest of us then. But I'll stick to my IDE anyway.

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:21 AM

I use a combination of a shell environment - such as cygwin - and an IDE such as Eclipse. I find some things are much easier using an IDE, and some things (such as recursive greps and find -exec commands) are much better executed in a shell. I don't see why more people don't use the same setup - you get the benefits of both.

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:32 AM

jon.kiparsky, on 02 April 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I have no idea why anyone would use anything like notepad, but a proper editor is the right tool for editing. Why you'd want a dedicated (and substandard) editor for writing code is beyond me, even if it has some added features that duplicate the ones that are already available from your command line. (ie, build tools, repository access, etc)

To me, using an IDE indicates that either you don't know how to use your OS or that your OS doesn't work right. In the latter case, I suppose an IDE is the second-best choice, and presumably you're only using a broken OS because the first-best choice isn't available to you for some reason. In the former case, I recommend this book (available as a free download) as a starting point.

Maybe once you try working on a semi-complicated project, you'll realize just how moronic and ignorant your post is.

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Sorry, but why would you consider using a "notepad"-like program over an IDE? As Duckington said, an IDE has numerous features, while the former is just a word-processing program.

Just curious, I'm not bashing text-editors

I have no idea why anyone would use anything like notepad, but a proper editor is the right tool for editing. Why you'd want a dedicated (and substandard) editor for writing code is beyond me, even if it has some added features that duplicate the ones that are already available from your command line. (ie, build tools, repository access, etc)

To me, using an IDE indicates that either you don't know how to use your OS or that your OS doesn't work right. In the latter case, I suppose an IDE is the second-best choice, and presumably you're only using a broken OS because the first-best choice isn't available to you for some reason. In the former case, I recommend this book (available as a free download) as a starting point.

Well considering that the GNU definition of an operating system is the kernel combined with a set of software... of which not all software is required and can be customized. And seeing as an IDE IS software, that is optional. Then an operating system that has software available in the form of an IDE, then we've got exactly what you're describing.

Really, what is an IDE? But all the tools one usually uses to develop, integrated together (hence the name). And if your 'software selection' primarily does the same things that the IDE does, really where is the line dividing the two?

Oh, I know where the line is. It's the idea with some *nix fans that you shouldn't have one large piece of software, and instead several small pieces of software that work together (there is several reasons for this, which are both valid and debatable). Although technically my IDE IS several smaller pieces of software working together, just with a larger parent piece of software inter-connecting them.

Aside from that, there really is no difference. Your development environment does ALL the same things mine does... it's not like yours has extra features mine doesn't have, and vice versa. And in the case that one does, we both can easily locate a tool to facilitate that need if we feel we need it.

So in the end, OUR operating systems facilitate OUR need to develop through multiple sets of software out there that we may choose from.

I've developed in Windows, OSX, Solaris, and multiple flavors of linux... as well as proprietary operating systems some of you never heard of, and are rather outdated in some cases. Each have had varying quality in tools available, not one really weighing out the best in the end, though certainly some being the worst (the PICK OS is quite honestly horrendous to code in).

Re: Text Editor vs IDE

Yo, dawg, I heard you like integrated environments so I integrated an integrated environment in your integrated environment...

Your development environment does ALL the same things mine does... it's not like yours has extra features mine doesn't have, and vice versa.

The argument you're making is interesting, but I think you're missing the point, and I think it's the same point the emacs developers missed. To the degree your IDE succeeds, it only succeeds in replicating existing functionality. Eventually, your IDE, like emacs, becomes a shell. And because it was never intended to be a shell, it does most of what the shell does for you, poorly. The situation reminds me of Greenspun's Tenth Rule, really.

If you understand the basic tools provided by any compliant OS, including a real editor, you already know how to do everything that your IDE does for you. You can use the same toolset to manage a web server, format a textbook, perform lexicographic analysis on a text corpus , or analyze tunes in a collection and try to come up with a grammar of fiddle tunes.

In other words, the native toolset of the posix-compliant CLI is an inherently more powerful and more flexible environment for development, as well as any other form of text manipulation you might engage in, than anything else you'll find implemented.